Winners Don't Use Drugs, but Future FBI Employees Do
Jacob Sullum | October 11, 2005, 11:45am
The FBI may become more tolerant of youthful drug use by job applicants. Under current policy, the bureau automatically rejects applicants who admit smoking marijuana in the previous three years or more than 15 times or who admit using other illegal drugs in the previous 10 years or more than five times. Under the policy the FBI is considering, which would apply to non-gun-toting jobs such as intelligence analysis, translation, computer work, and accounting, the bureau would take a more holistic approach in evaluating an applicant's background and character. (Would-be special agents would still be subject to the stricter standard.) "Some senior FBI managers have been frustrated that they could not hire applicants who acknowledged occasional marijuana use in college but who in some cases already perform top-secret work at other government agencies," the Associated Press reports. A.P. also quotes former Bush administration terrorism adviser Richard Clarke:
What people did when they were 18 or 21, I think that is pretty irrelevant....We have to recognize there are a couple of generations now who regarded marijuana use, while it's technically illegal, as nothing more serious than jaywalking.
[Thanks to Bruce Mirken at the Marijuana Policy Project for the tip.]
JDM | October 11, 2005, 5:07pm | #
"Where do I fit in to your worldview?"
You really aren't very rational, based on your posts here. Occasionally, but not usually. Which doesn't mean only when I disagree with you. There are plenty of people I disagree with more who are more rational than you are, at least as revealed here.
"Not every pot user is a pothead."
That's true.
"By the standards of this forum you are obviously ignorant, irrational, and (worst of all) statist!"
Where are these standards written? You're always railing on about all the randroids and right winger's here, but there really is a pretty broad range of people who post here.
At any rate, it's my opinion, and not inconsidered, but also not backed or refuted by any reasearch I've been able to find. There's lots of research that shows how various types of training can effect personality, values and beliefs.
People trained in economics become more selfish in personality, and more libertarian in their political ideologies. Computer programmers have peculiar linguistic habits, and process written language differently than other people. Both show up beyond the narrow cases where the training is being used.
I think that time spent high probably acts as training for the mind. Much as people aren't really remembering anything when they feel deja vu, they aren't really understanding anything when they are on pot, or acid. I think that messes them up in at least introducing shoddy premises to their thought process, and possibly in other ways as well.
Lowdog | October 11, 2005, 6:40pm | #
I don't see how taking pot or acid and having it alter the way you think about things is always going to be a bad thing. I'm sure there are some people out there, especially those without a well-rounded education, who are going to go the wrong way with their altered mind (I know, because I've actually seen it), but for people who are looking to alter/expand their mind to
enhance their critical thinking and have a well-rounded enough education to actually understand the changes and the ramifications of them are probably going to have a net positive benefit.
Of course, that's my anecdotal experience. Although I have read a number of studies using psilocybin, mdma, and lsd where those substances can, indeed, help people overcome repressed memories, post-traumatic stress, etc. This is in a controlled environment with a psychiatrist present and whatnot, but I think it lends some credence.
Also, look at the writings of a guy like Alexander Shulgin. That man is exceedingly brilliant and has comsumed a huge number of psychoactive substances, most, if not all, because he was experimenting on himself after actually synthesising the substance. Don't get me wrong, he has a strong spiritual worldview, no doubt due, in part, to his psychedelic experiences, which even I sometimes find to be a little "hokey", but there's no doubt the man is brilliant.
Now I'm just rambling, so I'll leave it at that.
(And for the record, I'm not being holier-than-thou in the first paragraph...it's just more anecdotal evidence that I've encountered in my experiences.)
JDM | October 12, 2005, 1:22pm | #
Ok, ok, one more, but really this is it, maybe.
"Right, you merely said pot smokers are prone to believing things they otherwise wouldn't. Jesus, man, do you ever stop to think before you type?"
I didn't say that, and that statement is worlds different from the statement I just claimed not to make. Here's a hint: pothead does not mean all pot smokers, or everyone who smokes a joint ever, and potheads I've known aren't strangers.
So, no. I can't read the minds of people I don't know who smoke an unspecified amount of pot. I can recognize some common personality traits of drug addicts, and speculate on the cause.
If I took more time to proofread, I would have replaced "the beliefs" with "particular beliefs," but that really ought to be clear based on what I'm responding to.
"Arguments based on logical fallacies"
And again, for the last time, I'm not "basing an argument" on statistical sampling. I'm explaining an opinion based on a complex interaction between experience, scientific evidence, and rational evidence as it applies to my model of the human mind. I was hoping someone would have some facts or links to research that could shed light one way or the other. Instead it becomes an exercise in explaining to people what "reading" is, which is interesting for a while, but ultimately useless. Also, a single speculative belief, known and admitted to be specualtive, does not in anyway equate to "a whole section of my worldview."
And fine, your second post isn't a belief, it's actually a collection of magnetic fluxes somewhere in cyberspace. La de da. Nevertheless it contains words which, logically interpreted, express an absurd belief which is the basis of your speculation. Re-read your own post, and try to figure out why it doesn't make sense in the context of the conversation unless the reader assumes that you hold the belief that people who haven't tried pot are never or at least rarely independent thinkers. Your speculation is about whether such people make good agents, not whether or not independent thinkers have almost always smoked pot.
